You’re a funny little man, picking over phrases and avoiding the larger issue.

Because I see things clearly and not thru some Frank Capra-esque cheesy “democracy cures all” glasses

Cheese?

a revolution requires an opposing, and in place, government

Cheese?

No, Rosebud is Richie Petrie’s middle name.

You stated a position, then contradicted yourself. Nothing personal, but keep your talking points straight. It’s not a “civil war.”

ScottG on July 27, 2006 at 4:24 PM

You’re a funny little man, picking over phrases and avoiding the larger issue. Well, whatever it is, I hear it’s in its last throes.

The following excerpt lists some of these:

• The Shiite United Iraqi Alliance no longer seeks to form a unity government and marginalize the Shiite political blocks.
• Sunni political parties withdraw from the political process.
• Kurds make hard push for independence/full autonomy.
• Grand Ayatollah Sistani ceases calls for calm, no longer takes a lead role in brokering peace.
• Muqtada al-Sadr becomes a leading voice in Shiite politics.
• Major political figures – Shiite and Sunni – openly call for retaliation.
• The Sunni Iraqi Islamic Party and Muslim Scholars Association openly call for the formation of Sunni militias.
• Interior Ministry ceases any investigations into torture and death squads, including the case against recently uncovered problems with the Highway Patrol.
• Defense Minister Dulaimi (a Sunni) is asked to step down from his post.
• Iraqi Security Forces begins severing ties with the Coalition, including:

o Disembeddeding the Military Transition Teams.
o Requests U.S. forces to vacate Forward Operating Bases / Battle Positions in Western and Northern Iraq.
o Alienates Coalition at training academies.

• Iraqi Security Forces make no effort to quell violence or provide security in Sunni neighborhoods.
• Iraqi Security Forces actively participate in attacks on Sunnis, with the direction of senior leaders in the ministries of Defense or Interior.
• Shiite militias are fully mobilized, with the assistance of the government, and deployed to strike at Sunni targets. Or, the Shiite militias are fully incorporated into the Iraqi Security Forces without certification from Coalition trainers.
• Sunni military officers are dismissed en masse from the Iraqi Army.
• Kurdish officers and soldiers leave their posts and return to Kurdistan, and reform into Peshmerga units.
• Attacks against other religious shrines escalate, and none of the parties make any pretense about caring.
• Coalition military forces pull back from forward positions to main regional bases.

I urge everyone to read the entire posting.

I think Mr. Roggio was exactly right back in February and that the conditions he postulates for a civil war still have not ripened.

Iraq clearly faces difficult times ahead.

It is axiomatic that some will cultures nurse grudges over religion, sometimes for centuries. The Catholics and the Protestants of Northern Ireland for example. The Greeks still very much hate and resent the Turks (their NATO ally) over their 400 year occupation. Bosnia-Croatia-Serbia-Kosovo is all about nearly identical situation — this time 3 ways, Catholic vs. Orthodox vs. Muslim.

The Shia v. Sunni religious grudge is more than 1000 years old and to expect for it to be subliminated, now that Saddam is gone, is idiotic.

The fact that, in spite of the sectarian violence, Sunnis, Kurds, and Shiites are not only talking but cooperating in a government is testiment that Iraq’s future is neither as bleak as “The Commissar” thinks or as “honora” hopes.

You stated a position, then contradicted yourself. Nothing personal, but keep your talking points straight. It’s not a “civil war.”

However, this is all so much parsing. Here’s the plain truth: this has blown up in our face because we were wildly naive from the get-go. You don’t want to call it a civil war, fine, call it Rosebud.

Actually, a revolution requires an opposing, and in place, government, a civil war requires two groups claiming legitimacy as the rightful government. Semantics.

Not quite. The Confederacy never claimed to be the only legitimate government for America. They clearly separated themselves from the Federal government. They made no claims on northern territory. They claimed they were more faithful to the Declaration of Independence, but not that the US government was illegitimate.

I was against this from the get-go, was one of those who predicted a civil war.

But you just said: “a civil war requires two groups claiming legitimacy as the rightful government. Semantics.” Where’s the other government? Not one of the so-called insurgent groups is claiming they will reinstate Saddam’s government.

Please keep your talking points straight.

I was against this from the get-go, was one of those who predicted a civil war. Water under the bridge–the key question is what now? Just packing up and wishing the Iraqis well is not an option; on the other hand, given the circumstances have undergone a sea-change, it seems pretty illogical to maintain the same game plan.

The comment that “we won the war” is interesting. W defines Iraq as part of the war on terror; so does this mean we have won the war on terror???

In hindsight, putting aside the political value, throwing around the term “war on terror” was a mistake. Terror is a tactic; we are at war with Islamic jihadists and their opportunist allies–Venezuala, N Korea. We need to come with another name that includes all this, irrespective of the means employed–suicide bombs, Iran’s nuclear program, the whole ball of wax.

Take Baghdad and one or two other cities out of the equation and see how peaceful Iraq really is. Civil War? Bah!

Feeling inspired this morning – wonder if the wingnuts are up to anything new? All Things Beautiful – Ralph Nader now works for Hezbollah, and the deaths of the U.N. observers are Kofi Annan’s fault because, like, why do they…

We, on the other hand, will be considered a failure if we don’t take care of a major force in the terror plague – Iran.

Here’s the lastest update on numbers from Iraq:

http://allthingsconservative.typepad.com/all_things_conservative/2006/07/iraq_index.html

I’m loath to call any campaign a “mistake” that replaced a country which paid pensions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with a country whose leader describes it as the “front line” in the war on terror and which celebrates the killing of Al Qaeda capos as quasi-national holidays.

Exactly.

Under Saddam the sectarian violence existed, but no one thought to call it a civil war because the Sunnis always won. There was no government to referee because the Sunni brutality was conducted by the government while Shia and Kurds quietly filled mass graves.

At least now, there’s a central government which is an ostensiblty neutral party. It’s going to be up to them to quell this violence, which they may or may not be able to do. That puts them in about the same spot as the Pakistani, Thai, Phillipine, Indian and Indonesian governments who also have to deal with local insurgents blowing their citizens up.

As far as US national interests go, none of this is a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. Saddam is gone, Oil for Food is gone, the sanctions charade is gone, etc… We’ve accomplished what we went in there to do. As for civil war, it isn’t a civil war unless it causes a credible threat to the standing government. When the Sunnis walk out of the government and declare themselves independant or at war, then we’ve got a civil war. Not until then, and that doesn’t appear to be on the horizon.

After decades of brutal dictatorship, it isn’t the least bit odd that there’s payback afoot. But this is largely an Iraqi quality of life issue and it doesn’t speak at all to whether OIF was a mistake.

What makes people think that we’re ever going to be able to control everything?

The Commissar: Iraq was a mistakeAllahpundit It’s times like these I wish the right had a bratty little jackass to excommunicate dissenters a la Peretz and Zengerle. As it is, I guess we’ll have to politely hear him out and…